Reactions to this expose
will be mixed---it will not exactly be welcomed by many. But there has been so
much in the media recently on bad or obscene language with no clarification as
to its inference. Science has potentially unlimited power to solve all mysteries
but it is not remotely being fully utilised. It may come as a surprise,
even a shock to learn that so-called bad language is not only about offending
people, and it is not a question of 'cultural conservatism', or brushing it aside
as a modern trend, but can be shown to be detrimental to the behavioural environment
within society. On this basis, prospects for our civilisation look pretty bleak
when we observe that bad language has escalated over the past fifty years beyond
what could have been predicted, and is a certain indication of the degradation
of a civilisation---it is even being glamourised on television. This all may seem
trivial to the habitual swearer but the subject is a major issue of negative behaviour
and is an index to other deterioration within society.

We
find that the words in question are mainly ones describing biological functions
or products. The most offensive and common swear word is the 'F' word. It is rapidly
becoming a verbal plague, particularly amongst the young, and yet little is done
about it. There appears to be a complete absence of relevant knowledge. A typical
instance: the author, walking into town recently could overhear two youths following
close behind at an equal pace, expelling 'F' words ad-lib. Amazingly, on returning
half-an-hour later, the identical situation repeated, with the same two youths
immediately behind (and science thinks there are no synchronicities---meaningful
coincidences!).

Such words have the
purpose of expressing hostility, insult, malicious intent, etc. All thought is
energy (has been proved) and this is associated with the words. In order to show
the reader that this negativity is real and not an insubstantial personal aversion,
we can apply non-experimental physics. One of the great benefits of science is
that it has the potential to explain all quantitative-type phenomena (not, of
course, the experiential and subjective aspects of art, music, etc., which science
endeavours to reduce to the quantitative level). The swear word can be
quantitatively analysed.Application of
science without dependence on the limitations of scientific methodology (and therefore
referred to as non-experimental) has the ability to bring truth to all such problems
in a civilisation---such as reconciling science and religion, explaining karma
(or 'punishment from God'), etc. So what is holding it back?

It
is in fact the unofficial and unspoken law that the experimental method is the
only acceptable system of determining truth---even going further and subtly implying
that anything that can't be proved by science, or hasn't yet been proved, is not
worthy of consideration. And yet quantum physics about 60 years ago revealed that
there were drastic experimental limitations. After serious debates on this the
information apparently was swept under the rug (see The Limitations of Scientific
Objectivity and The New Education: Part XI).

The
point we are making here is that non-experimental scientific knowledge will be,
and will have to be, introduced, forming and cultivating a viable procedure/method
to be used if real progress is to continue. Everything that we can talk about
or conceive of manifests energy patterns (frequencies/waves). This actually makes
physics the basic science and further that the basic subject within physics is:
how energy works. The extent to which we understand how energy works we could
solve virtually all problems on a planet and settle all arguments---if not restricted
by the limitations of scientific methodology. There are other ways of
arriving at truths.

Now what makes
these words offensive? It is not just the individual who is being oversensitive.
And why are certain words chosen to be used in a negative way? Language undergoes
continuous change; not always for the better. In this context, certain individuals
discovered that to impact a more negative effect on a target (a person or incident)
one could use words of biological functions and products. However, the official
words are replaced by degenerate ones in order to accommodate the new distorted
meaning, which then invalidates the official word and prevents the true meaning
taking precedence. Only meanings are chosen that contain associated suppression/repression,
dislike, disgust, taboo elements, etc. any of which have at some time invoked
negative or repressed reactions (even dislike involves some withdrawal/repression
from what is disliked). This is emotional charge associated with the memory of
the experiences. The 'F' word clearly gives us a word charged with energy. Thought
is energy and intention projects energy. The 'F' word fundamentally relates to
the creation of life but its verbalisation is used for exactly the opposite: destructive
purposes (this is in addition to the biological function effect), or simply the
creation of an effect, ridiculing its true meaning, such as in entertainment.
Combined with its taboo associations it gives scope for more intensity, though
more importantly it is thus chosen to express greater negative intention, and
therefore the word itself can build up a thought-form of antisocial and distorted
energies, in which the waveforms are chaotic, not in harmonious alignment with
universal energies, and thus contributes a damaging and disharmonious effect on
whatever it impinges on, as these vibrations radiate out.

As
stated above, the main function of swear words is to convey either hostility,
insult, malicious intent, dislike/hatred, and, in general, negative emphasis,
or merely to create an effect using these distorted energies. But a proper evolution
is in the direction of increased sanity, health and peace, responsibility, which
involves integrated and harmonic energies. Compare a beautiful piece of music,
with all its parts harmonically interrelated into a whole, with cacophonous sound.
Which is the most intelligent?

Before
outlining a simple scientific analysis, let's take a relatively mild sample of
bad language, say, 'bullshit'. The first question is, why is this word being used
(in the typically hostile manner)? Simply because of what it actually represents---something
which one steps in, in a field (or whatever), creating a reaction of discomfort,
dislike, disgust (a variable negative emotional state, depending on the individual).
This reaction creates emotional charge (electrical) in the mind (has been proved)
and is stored with the memory (in an out-of-phase condition). A person can now
choose this word, which is linked with the negative emotional experience, to impact
a greater effect by using the negative emotional charge represented by the particular
word---but unaware of this process, which is totally unrelated to actually stepping
in bullshit. In this case, it might be to, say, condemn something as nonsense.
The word now has negative energy to release and radiate out or impinge on another
mind. Whereas the word 'nonsense', to express the same thing, is neutral---it
doesn't contain charge; it is merely a word expressing precisely its given meaning.
The word 'bullshit' has no intelligent use in this context except to impinge emotionally
into the event the disharmonious energies.

When
such words are used the individual does not in fact recognise at that moment what
the words actually mean. If the individual's consciousness focussed in on this
they would probably chuckle and feel silly. An example: the author, working for
a company, was in the gents at the washbowls. A cubicle occupant, clearly admonishing
himself for creating some minor inconvenience, such as dropping something, and
clearly a habitual swearer, cried out, 'Oh, shi* . . .!' but being evidently quite
sharp-minded he curtailed the word abruptly, realising before he fully articulated
the expletive how ridiculous it must sound to anyone else in the gents area. Meaning
what else would he expect to find in a toilet. People need to increase their awareness
of what these words actually mean and how ridiculous their use is, not to mention
being aware of what they are doing, degrading qualitative energies.

Let
us now apply, in simple terms, non-experimental physics to the bad-language problem,
based on quantum physics, the most advanced science on the planet. Quantum physics
sees everything in terms of wave packets, whether particles, objects, or even
words. For simplicity, picture a bunch of sine waves (oscillating waves)---they
add together to form a resultant modulated wave. A normal word will have a wave
packet in which the waves will be in reasonable mathematical alignment (harmony).
Quantum physics sees everything as minute energies (particles/waves) blinking
on and off (we only see the 'on' state) and that all particles/energies are interconnected
throughout the universe. Objects in empty space is an illusion but correctly perceived
at our level of perception. (A scientist might question that it can only be the
sound of the word, which could carry the negative vibration, but in fact fringe
areas of scientific knowledge are revealing that scalar-electromagnetics underlie
sound.)

The average word will have
the waves in mathematical alignment, which means the resultant is a smooth modulated
(larger) wave. Now, negative emotional states are projected through swear words
(that's the purpose of them). This puts the waves of the word with the emotional
charge out of alignment, creating a disharmonious spiky resultant wave (this could
be shown on an advanced oscilloscope). Quantum physics tells us that all these
wave packets radiate out to the universe! Hence, these degenerate words---as long
as they are reinforced---make a contribution to the decline of the civilisation
as they impinge on all phenomena.

Those
who object to cleaning up our language and communication are missing the whole
point. The path to higher intelligence and sanity is a harmonic evolution governed
by the nature of the energies of consciousness and the proper functioning of our
genetics. We desperately need some quality control: a campaign to foster
more qualitative states---in which the parts are in special relationship, such
as resonance---whether particles, energies or people. A course for students of
all ages is needed to understand the relationship between qualitative and quantitative,
with physics to back it up. Note that present experimental physics is only quantitative,
but non-experimental physics could be qualitative (dealing with finer energies---higher
frequencies---and greater wholeness).

There
is a failure to recognise what factors of existence promote a proper survival
of the human species, and vice versa what devolves the species. If there is no
subjective understanding of this (and subjective understanding would be sufficient),
non-experimental physics has the capability to enlighten the species by the application
of how energy works.